You are here: / A CONTRACTOR ALLEGED TO HAVE WORKED ON THE AREA OF THE ROADWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF...

Search Results

/ ,

A CONTRACTOR ALLEGED TO HAVE WORKED ON THE AREA OF THE ROADWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL AND THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THEIR LIABILITY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipality’s (Port Washington North’s) motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this slip and fall case. The code provision requiring written notice of the dangerous condition applied to the village, not to Port Washington North, and Port Washington North did not demonstrate it did not create the condition. In addition, defendant contractor did not demonstrate it did not do any work on the roadway in the area of the slip and fall:

A contractor [J. Anthony] may be liable for an affirmative act of negligence which results in the creation of a dangerous condition upon a public street or sidewalk … . Thus, in moving for summary judgment, J. Anthony had the burden of establishing, prima facie, that it did not perform any work on the portion of the roadway where the accident occurred or that it did not create the allegedly defective condition that caused the plaintiff’s injuries … . However, J. Anthony failed to satisfy its burden … .The failure to do so requires the denial of that branch of J. Anthony’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers … .

Port Washington North moved for summary judgment on the ground, inter alia, that it had not received prior written notice of the alleged defect which caused the plaintiff’s injuries. … Since the prior written notice provision specifically limits the notice requirement to “street[s]” located “within the Village” (Village Code §§ 143-23, 143-22), this provision is not applicable to the facts here, as the location of the accident was not within Port Washington North. Moreover, Port Washington North failed to meet its prima facie burden of eliminating all triable issues of fact regarding its role in creating the allegedly defective condition … . Downing v J. Anthony Enters., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 08038, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

/ ,

THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED; THE DISCONTINUANCE DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should have been granted. The action was time-barred. The debt was accelerated when the foreclosure action was started and the discontinuance did not de-accelerate the debt:

Plaintiff’s … contention—that the stipulation of discontinuance in the 2007 action revoked the acceleration of the debt—is likewise without merit. … Here, the stipulation of discontinuance in the 2007 action is silent on the issue of the revocation of the election to accelerate and does not otherwise indicate that the plaintiff would accept installment payments from the defendant and thus did not constitute an affirmative act revoking acceleration … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Ebanks, 2020 NY Slip Op 08035, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

/

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED THERE HAD BEEN NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY IN THE PAST AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FAILURE TO SECURE THE ALLEYWAY WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner’s motion for summary judgment in this third-party assault case should have been granted. The defendant demonstrated there had been no prior criminal activity on the property and did not raise a question of fact whether the failure to secure the alleyway was a proximate cause of the attack:

… [T]he infant plaintiff testified that while he was in the building’s vestibule, he was accosted by an unknown assailant and assaulted in the alleyway on the side of the building. The infant plaintiff, by his father and natural guardian, and his father suing derivatively, commenced this action against the defendant, alleging that the defendant failed to secure the alleyway.

To recover damages from an owner of real property for injuries caused by criminal acts on the premises, a plaintiff must produce evidence indicating that the owner knew or should have known of the probability of conduct on the part of third persons which was likely to endanger the safety of those lawfully on the premises … . Here, the defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to summary judgment by showing that it had no notice of prior criminal activity so as to make the instant occurrence foreseeable. The plaintiffs submitted no evidence in response, and thus failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Moreover, in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing with respect to causation, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant’s alleged failure to secure the alleyway was a proximate cause of the occurrence … . Calle v Elmhurst Woodside, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 08033, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

/ ,

AN INSURER WHO HAS NO DUTY TO DEFEND THE INSUREDS BECAUSE OF LATE NOTIFICATION, IN THE ABSENCE OF A PROVISION IN THE POLICY, MAY NOT RECOVER THE COSTS OF DEFENDING THE ACTION FROM THE INSUREDS AND THE SUCCESSFUL PLAINTIFF IN THE UNDERLYING ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy addressing a matter of first impression, determined the plaintiff insurer, which was not obligated to indemnify the insureds for a $900,000 default judgment because plaintiff insurer was not timely notified of the claim, could not recover the costs of defending the action from the insureds and the successful plaintiff in the underlying action. The policy was silent on the question. At issue was the effect of a reservation of rights in a letter to the insureds:

There is little doubt that the insurance company could have included in the policy a provision wherein it could recover its defense costs (upon a reservation of rights and a judicial determination that it is not required to indemnify) had it wanted to, but it did not do so here.

The insurance company points to its May 2017 letter wherein it reserved its rights to seek to recover the costs of defending the underlying litigation and argues that other New York courts … . * * *

Typically, a reservation of rights letter asserts defenses and exclusions that are set forth in the policy between the parties. Indeed, awarding an insurer its defense costs when the insurer issues a reservation of rights letter for the same despite the lack of any language in the policy at issue permitting the insurer to recover the costs of defending claims that are later determined not covered by the policy flies in the face of basic contract principles and allows an insurer to impose a condition on its defense that was not bargained for … . Moreover, “‘strong policy considerations militate against allowing an insurer to unilaterally declare that it can recoup the costs of defending an insured where it is later determined [that the policy at issue did not cover the asserted claims]'” as doing so would allow an insurer to define its duty to defend based upon the outcome of a declaratory judgment action and significantly curtail New York’s long held view that the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify … .  Thus, we hold that the insurance company may not recover its defense costs based on the May 2017 letter wherein it reserved its rights to recoup its defense costs in the underlying litigation absent an express provision to that effect in the policy. American W. Home Ins. Co. v Gjonaj Realty & Mgt. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 08027, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

/ , ,

THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE COULD SUE FOR DECEDENT’S CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING BUT, BECAUSE THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION HAD NOT BEEN LISTED AS AN ASSET IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING, THE ADMINISTRATOR DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO SUE ON BEHALF OF THE DISTRIUBUTEE FOR WRONGFUL DEATH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this wrongful death action, determined that the plaintiff, who was the administrator of the estate and the sole distributee, could bring an action for conscious pain and suffering because that claim was personal to the decedent and part of the estate. But, because the wrongful death action, which vested in the plaintiff/distributee upon death, was not listed as an asset in the plaintiff’s bankruptcy proceedings, to which the decedent was not a party, the plaintiff did not have the capacity to bring that claim:

… [T]he plaintiff, as the administrator of the decedent’s estate, had the capacity to prosecute the cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering. A cause of action brought on behalf of a deceased to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering is “personal to the deceased and belongs to the estate, not the distributees” … . The decedent was not a party to the bankruptcy proceeding. Accordingly, the bankruptcy did not affect the plaintiff’s capacity to prosecute the cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering on behalf of the decedent’s estate … .

The Supreme Court, however, should have granted those branches of the defendants’ separate motions which were to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death insofar as asserted against each of them. “A cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death is a property right belonging solely to the distributees of the decedent and vests in them at the decedent’s death” (… EPTL 5-4.4 [a]). It is undisputed that the cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death vested in the plaintiff as the sole distributee of the estate prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition. Accordingly, as the plaintiff failed to schedule the wrongful death claim in the bankruptcy proceeding, it is subject to dismissal in this action on the ground that the plaintiff lacks the capacity to pursue the claim … . Vinogradov v Bay Plaza Apts Co., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 08104, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

/ , ,

THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED ON HEARSAY; THE SECOND MORTGAGE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO MEET THE REQUIRMENTS OF RPAPL 1351 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report was based upon hearsay and should not have been confirmed. In addition, the proof a second mortgage met the requirements of RPAPL 1351 and 1354 was insufficient:

“The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” … . Here, the affidavit executed by an employee of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, which was submitted by the plaintiff for the purpose of establishing the amount due and owing under the mortgage loan, constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value because the affiant failed to produce any of the business records upon which she purportedly relied in making her calculations … . Consequently, the referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record … .

… In an action to foreclose a mortgage commenced by a first mortgagee, a second mortgagee may move for a provision in the judgment of foreclosure and sale that any surplus moneys from the foreclosure sale be applied to satisfy the debt owed by the defendant to the second mortgagee (see RPAPL 1351[3]). Such a motion may be granted if “it appears to the satisfaction of the court” that there exists no more than one other mortgage on the subject premises which is “then due” and subordinate only to the plaintiff’s mortgage but is entitled to priority over all other liens and encumbrances other than those described RPAPL 1354(2), and if the motion of the second mortgagee is “made without valid objection of any other party” (RPAPL 1351[3]).

Here, [the] motion papers insufficient, prima facie, to meet the requisite standard (see RPAPL 1351[3]) … . U.S. Rof III Legal Tit. Trust 2015-1 v John, 2020 NY Slip Op 08099, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

/ ,

THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN JOINED AND OTHER CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO DISMISSAL WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the conditional order dismissing the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216 should not have been granted:

The conditional order constituted a defective 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216. The court was without authority to issue a 90-day notice since issue was not joined in the action (see CPLR 3216[b][1] … ). Moreover, the conditional order failed to state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply “will serve as a basis for a motion” by the court to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute … . The purported dismissal was not properly effectuated since the court never directed the parties to show cause why the action should not be dismissed, and failed to issue a formal order of dismissal on notice to the parties as required by CPLR 3216 … . Moreover, the conditional order was erroneous since it directed the plaintiff to move for an order of reference, even though the plaintiff had already moved for an order of reference. Accordingly, we grant the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the conditional order and restore the action to the active calendar. U.S. Bank N.A. v Thompson, 2020 NY Slip Op 08098, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

/ , ,

THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was not demonstrated with admissible evidence. Therefore the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

… [T]he affidavit of an employee of its loan servicer was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304. The affiant did not aver that he had personal knowledge of the purported mailings, or that he was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the plaintiff, which allegedly sent the notice … . In addition, the plaintiff’s submission of an affidavit of its own employee was similarly insufficient to establish the plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304, since the employee had no personal knowledge of the purported mailings and he did not attest to a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Further, the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient proof of the actual mailings of the notices by first-class mail … . Ridgewood Sav. Bank v Van Amerongen, 2020 NY Slip Op 08095, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

/ ,

THE CONTRACT PROPERLY ACCORDED THE ARBITRATOR THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE “GATEWAY” QUESTIONS OF ARBITRABILITY; NONSIGNATORIES ARE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, over a two-justice dissent, determined: (1) the contract properly accorded the arbitrator the power to decide whether the issues raised in the complaint were arbitrable (so-called “gateway” questions); and (2) the non-signatories, here plaintiff’s LLC and defendant’s law partner and law firm, are subject to the arbitration provision in the contract. Plaintiff is a professional football player and defendant is an attorney who represented plaintiff in contract negotiation and marketing and endorsements. The opinion is detailed and comprehensive and cannot be fully summarized here:

… Revis [plaintiff athlete] entered into an agreement with Schwartz [defendant attorney] pursuant to which they agreed to arbitrate “gateway” questions of arbitrability … . …

… [N]either the Supreme Court, nor this Court, nor any court, has the authority to decide whether and to what extent these parties’ disputes are arbitrable … . Indeed, just as a court may not “rule on the potential merits of the underlying” claim that is assigned by contract to an arbitrator, “even if it appears to the court to be frivolous”… , “a court may not decide an arbitrability question that the parties have delegated to an arbitrator” … , even if the court determines that “the argument that the arbitration agreement applies to the particular dispute is ‘wholly groundless'” … . * * *

“Under the direct benefits theory of estoppel, a nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate where the nonsignatory ‘knowingly exploits’ the benefits of an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and receives benefits flowing directly from the agreement” … . “The benefits must be direct, and the party seeking to compel arbitration must demonstrate that the party seeking to avoid arbitration relies on the terms of the agreement containing the arbitration provision in pursuing its claim” … . Revis v Schwartz, 2020 NY Slip Op 08094, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

/ , ,

THE DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES FUNCTIONED AS A SINGLE INTEGRATED UNIT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER; PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE IS THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BENEFITS HE APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED BEFORE BRINGING THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined the corporate entities plaintiff sued in this slip and fall case function as a single integrated entity with plaintiff’s employer, the nursing home where he was injured. Plaintiff had applied for and received Workers’ Compensation benefits and then brought this Labor 240(1) action. The First Department held that plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was Workers’ Compensation:

… [W]e find that Hopkins Ventures has shown ownership of 100% of both KFG Land and KFG Operating and that it exercised complete managerial and financial control over both companies, operating them as if they were a single integrated entity. Since the evidentiary proof submitted by KFG Land was sufficient to make out its prima facie case, that the LLCs functioned as a single integrated entity in connection with the joint venture of acquiring and operating the property and nursing home, the exclusivity provisions of the WCL apply. Plaintiff failed to raise a material issue of fact to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment. …

Although the dissent reaches the underlying merits of plaintiff’s cross appeal concerning the dismissal of his Labor Law §240(1) on the basis that he was not engaged in a “repair” or “alteration” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) at the time of his accident, we affirm on the ground that even if plaintiff was engaged in alteration or repair, the exclusivity provisions of the WCL would be his sole remedy since he applied for and received those benefits. Fuller v KFG L & I, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 07998, First Dept 12-29-20

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy